There's no real way for it to tell that the message if failing because it was deliberately forged.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alverson, Thomas M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > Is there any way to have exchange 5.5 treat those NDR messages to bad > spammer email addresses differently than real emails? I delete them when I > see them in the queue, but It would be nice if you could make exchange give > up real easily (quickly) when trying to send an NDR to a bad address. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IMC originator <> > > > The RFC isn't real clear on this. We've gone round on this before and it > seems that server can optionally deny the message up-front or accept it and > than NDR it back to the sender. Exchange does the latter. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Siegel, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:55 PM > Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > > > > Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response to notification > > messages is my point. If relaying disabled, messages that are > > 'spoofed' should not generate an NDR in my opinion. I mean, why should > > it send and fail send and fail to hosts that don't exist just to say, > > 'invalid host' > or > > relaying prohibited or am I missing something? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:41 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > > > > > > They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well. > > > > William > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > > > > > > So I should ignore those if they are not causing any other problem? I > > have followed all the suggested reccomendations regarding relaying. > > > > Rich > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:41 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IMC originator <> > > > > > > That is your server NDRing the attempted relays back to the spammers. > Since > > spammers tend to use bogus addresses those messages will likely > > timeout after three days as undeliverable. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Siegel, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:18 PM > > Subject: IMC originator <> > > > > > > > I believe I have closed my mail server: smtp.actv.com from relaying, > > however > > > whenever I go into the IMS queues, I am still seeing messages with > > > originator <> with destination another host. What is up with this, > > > am I missing something? > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
